list_test_results

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds return field details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. With good annotations, the bar is lower, but the description could add more context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and return details are front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is returned. However, it could mention pagination or ordering behavior, though the limit parameter is present. Overall, adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining 'run' as test run ID or 'project' context). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function (list test results within a test run) and specifies the return fields (names, statuses, assignees). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_test_runs or get_test_result.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (listing results in a run) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_test_result for a single result, create_test_result for input). No exclusion criteria or prerequisite guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.